The following letter was sent to members of the state Legislature representing Edmonds and it is being published at the author’s request. To sign this letter, submit the form: https://bit.ly/3EgHWeW. To see who’s signed, click here.
We are residents, parents, workers, students, retirees, renters, homeowners, business leaders, and members of the Edmonds community, proud to call this place our home. Today, we find ourselves increasingly united by the belief that access to quality, affordable housing is essential to the health of individuals, families, and their communities – including our own.
With this belief at heart, we are writing to express our support for HB 1110 and its companion bill SB 5190, as well as HB 1517 and its companion bill SB 5466.
Why are these bills important?
Edmonds has a deep housing affordability crisis: 40% of our city’s residents spend 30% or more of their income on housing costs. The basis of our housing crisis is simple: as our local and regional economy has significantly expanded over the last few decades, creating new jobs and prosperity for Americans from all walks of life, we haven’t built enough new homes to keep up.
As a result, our city – and our region – has grown outwards, rather than internally. The housing we do build (again, not enough to meet total demand) is far away from job centers. The result? Natural lands are consumed by urban sprawl, our roads are increasingly congested, our housing costs are at unsustainable highs, and our region’s climate footprint increases: year, after year, after year.
We know the path forward, because it’s supported by a robust (and growing) body of economic research: by adding many new homes to our region, the overall affordability of housing will increase. But after years of insufficient local action, we must embrace all opportunities for positive change when we can find them. This session, two pieces of state legislation stand out for their potential to increase housing abundance in our city.
The first, HB 1110 (and its companion SB5190) enables the construction of “missing middle” homes, providing workers and community members with more ways to own and rent in Edmonds. This legislation will produce smaller, more affordable homes that offer more options for folks with unmet housing needs, or changing housing needs but a desire to remain in Edmonds: seniors on fixed incomes, new empty nesters, and families looking to grow, just to name a few.
The second, HB1517 (and its companion SB 5466) allows what’s known as “transit-oriented development”: increasing the number of homes that can be built around significant nodes of our public transportation network, like train stations. This approach ensures that the regional transit systems we’re investing in locally and regionally – light rail, high-frequency bus lines, and ferry stations – will be accessible and well-utilized, ultimately reducing the emissions and climate impact of regional transportation & commuting needs.
Building homes in Edmonds is climate action
While the most recent draft of the city’s Climate Action Plan makes clear that we are failing to meet our own climate change mitigation goals. The ways we live and the ways we move are deeply intertwined; with 90% of our city’s local greenhouse gas emissions created by homes and cars, any path towards positive change requires allowing our city’s built fabric to evolve to meet our changing needs.
Single-family homes in Edmonds – the only type of home legal to build on 77% of our city’s land – must be built on a minimum of 6,000 square feet of land. Some even require as many as 20,000! These space-consumption mandates reduce the total number of homes we can fit in our community, and – most importantly – limit how many homes can benefit from nearby access to schools, jobs, and services. In most of our neighborhoods, residents generally have no choice but to drive to reach their daily destinations. As a result, local emissions from transportation have increased 27% between 2000 and 2017, despite our population growing by just 7% over the same period, and significant increases in vehicle fuel efficiency standards.
If Edmonds is serious about taking bold climate action, we need to meet our housing needs efficiently – and building new multifamily is the only way. Building a fourplex (four homes) on a 6,000 square foot lot creates homes for the same number of households as 36,000 square feet of single-family properties (and requires far less energy to heat and cool.) This new construction will significantly increase the energy efficiency of our housing stock, nearly half of whichwas built to the lower energy performance standards of the 1950s and ‘60s.
By allowing more homes to be located near jobs, services, and transit, these bills enable development that demands less of our region’s natural resources: the most effective climate action we can take at the city level.
Housing abundance benefits everyone
Building more homes doesn’t just make it easier for people who work in Edmonds to join our community: it also offers more choices and stability to those who are already here! More homes in Edmonds means less stress around housing for everyone.
Whether you’re a senior on a fixed income, a couple looking for enough room to start a family, or an empty-nester looking to downsize, housing needs are unique at each stage of life, and evolve over time. But in our current housing shortage, finding a new home to better meet your needs too often requires finding a new community altogether. The inflexibility and homogeneity of our current housing supply disrupts our community’s continuity & connectedness, and too often severs vital ties between people and their places.
Our housing market is missing the volume of small, medium and family-size homes that we truly need to minimize displacement as needs change. Allowing more of these homes to be built everywhere across Edmonds – especially near public transit, schools and other essential services – ensures deeper stability and resiliency for all members of our community.
What about local control?
We share our local officials’ stated interest in finding housing solutions that meet the unique needs and context of our community. However, if they want to give more than just lip service to local control, this doctrine must be married to a sense of local responsibility that considers our housing shortage in its full magnitude – and it must result in local action.
As we write to you today, neither sufficient responsibility nor action have been taken. While it is disheartening to acknowledge Edmonds’ local struggles to address this issue for itself, we believe that accountability and frankness are necessary to move forward. Opportunities to exercise local control on housing supply growth have been repeatedly presented by our community to our city council over the last several years – but they have been disregarded.
For instance, on Jan. 3t, 2021, the council-chartered Edmonds Housing Commission delivered 15 recommendations to improve housing affordability and opportunity in Edmonds. The housing commission’s recommendations were practical, and straightforward: one was to legalize missing middle housing types like duplexes and cottage courts in areas across Edmonds. Another suggested planning for new multifamily housing supply in “neighborhood village” centers like Five Corners and Perrinville. Yet another would have allowed detached accessory dwelling units (small, backyard homes) to create more options for residence all over town.
When presented with these recommendations more than two years ago, the Edmonds City Council could have exercised local control and taken action to implement these community-supported measures. Instead, they chose to set them aside. Since the report was delivered, just two of the 15 recommendations have been adopted – neither of which have created new homes in Edmonds. Our last significant action to allow new homes, the Highway 99 Subarea Plan, was completed in 2017, and only created options in about 8% of our city.
After years of analysis, exhaustive debate and lengthy exploration of citizen-championed solutions, Edmonds’ local representatives are no closer to using local control to meaningfully address our housing shortage. While we appreciate their efforts, we must ask you to take action.
Edmonds has always blossomed through change – and nowhere has this change been more important than to the evolution of our neighborhoods.
Our waterfront, once choked with the smoke of shingle mills, is today an evolving cultural and recreational hub. Our southern Gateway region, brimming with local business and welcoming new neighbors, is setting firm roots as a prominent community center. These days, in every part of Edmonds, there’s an energy that’s hard to miss: this city is teeming with unprecedented vitality, and an undeniable readiness for its next chapter to unfold.
As we look ahead to the future of this wonderful place we share, we can’t help but be excited for the city we are to become: one that offers greater prosperity and opportunity. In our view, Edmonds’ magic has always been our people. We are a vibrant community today because of our longtime commitment to proximity and connection, socially and physically.
We look forward to your support of this crucial legislation: for the health of our community, our climate, and our future.
— By Mackey Guenther on behalf of the Coaltion for an Accessible and Resilient Edmonds (CARE)
Mackey Guenther is a college student, former City of Edmonds Planning and Development intern and a 21st Legislative District resident
Question have we removed word limits for certain reader views or letters to the editor seems I have seen a few extra long ones recently.
Reader views are opinion pieces that allow more words.
Agree. This is the same thing we heard when this person spoke on this subject at a Sunday meeting in downtown Edmonds a few months ago. The speaker was so intent on getting his message accepted that he refused to take questions, and dismissed anyone trying to question/clarify his statements/views.
In my opinion this article does not represent the view of the bulk of Edmonds citizens. If we trully want to listen and hear what our citizens think, we should poll them and document what they have to say – not shut down questions and concerns!
Thank you for your well thought out letter based on reason and benefits rather than fear and hate.
We need affordable housing. These bills are not the answer. Proposed up-zoning will create market-rate housing. Our legislators have defined “low income” as 80% or less of adjusted median income. See my Reader View: https://myedmondsnews.com/2023/02/reader-view-house-and-senate-bills-will-not-build-affordable-housing/
The Dems are using DEI to garner votes for these bills. These bills are anti-DEI. They would result in further gentrification of our communities. They are ageist. They would pressure seniors (and others on fixed incomes) to sell their homes to developers, happening in Seattle.
Up-zoning will be detrimental to our environment. Please learn about embodied carbon.
“Embodied carbon is the sum of all greenhouse gas emissions (mostly carbon) resulting from the construction lifecycle of a building.”
“If this one study is representative, the message for the construction industry is clear. Investment in the very highest levels of energy-efficiency for new homes is, even at its best, an extremely costly way of saving carbon. Investing in improvements to existing homes is dramatically more cost-effective.”
You have a lot to learn about politics, and about our valuable eco-systems. Every environmentalist I know is opposed to these bills.
Thank you, Mackey. My own letters to legislators echo many of your points. My family is hopeful that SHB 1110 will pass.
I was wondering why that Guardian article completely contradicts everything I have read about the environmental impacts of old versus new construction – then I realized it’s a 13-year-old article which does not take into account the enormous advances in building materials and techniques over the last dozen years. We have many excellent designers, planners, and builders in our area who have dedicated themselves to more efficient housing design and construction. This misrepresentation of today’s building industry not only does them a disservice, but is false information used to try to justify antiquated views on housing density.
As for environmentalists, here’s the Sierra Club’s very clear and thorough view on urban infill: https://www.sierraclub.org/smart-growth-urban-infill
The 12 year old article said “the study found that the construction of a new house generated 50 tonnes of CO2, but the renovation of an existing house emitted only 15 tonnes.” And “Investing in improvements to existing homes is dramatically more cost-effective.”
There is no getting around that bulldozing an existing home, transporting the debris, extracting and transporting new materials, and constructing the new home(s), releases dramatically more carbon than energy upgrades to the existing home would. Removal of all trees on the lot releases even more carbon.
Here is a link to a 2022 article about reducing construction costs:
Hopefully, as you claim “today’s building industry” is reducing the carbon released during construction. However, not all developers will choose to incur the added costs. Those that do will roll those costs into the (market-rate) price of the new home.
Our legislators’ focus is on increasing housing stock, without consideration for seniors and disabled on fixed incomes who will be displaced from their no longer affordable homes. Why does their plan ignore those who can’t afford market-rate housing?
Thank you for sharing your perspective that these bills are “anti-DEI” (I’m interpreting this to mean “anti-socioeconomic integration”), “ageist”, and “detrimental to our environment”.
Those conclusions are not consistent with my research, nor apparently the research of Washington’s Black Home Initiative (https://www.civic-commons.org/bhi), the AARP (https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/getting-around/info-2017/transit-oriented-development-senior-housing-denver.html, https://www.aarp.org/livable-communities/housing/info-2022/missing-middle-housing.html), or the Sierra Club (https://www.sierraclub.org/smart-growth-urban-infill).
I’d love to learn more about how your understanding of these bills differs. Please grab a time at https://cal.com/careforedmonds/coffee-chat if you’d like to chat, or email me at mackey [at] careforedmonds [dot] org!
I’ve reviewed your links and find nothing that confirms these housing bills support DEI. AARP article: “Missing Middle homes provide the size and affordability options that people of all ages — including older adults — very much need but often can’t find.”
Many of the homes constructed if these bills pass will be 2-3 storied duplexes and town houses, not suitable for seniors and the disabled. As people age, mobility issues can make climbing stairs difficult and increase fall risks. The homes created will be market-rate, not affordable to purchase, or rent, for most on fixed incomes.
Seniors and disabled living in their own homes, will face escalating property taxes due to increased “potential” value of their property. Those renting will face rent increases. Many seniors are already struggling to pay living and medical expenses, property taxes, mortgages. Rather than create more options, these bills will further financially burden them.
Not all of those on fixed incomes are Caucasian. They represent diverse backgrounds. The bills you support ignore diversity, eliminate affordable options, and replace them with market rate housing that only upwardly mobile professionals will be able to afford. In other words, they will “gentrify” more cities in WA.
Ms. Bloom, your well studied comments and thoughts based in fact illustrate the very negative impact these bills will have. Please keep commenting.
What is the meaning of DEI? Thank you.
DEI stands for diversity, equity and inclusion. Thanks for asking.
I watch these three story town-homes, condos, etc. going up and something just doesn’t feel right. Most do not provide enough parking space for more than one car. I cringe when I see them going up as close as possible to a single dwelling home that, within a short amount of time, the owner sells. So times are changing. For the better?
I may be getting grumpy but I can’t stand the condition of roads pre and post construction of these “developments). Where are the inspectors? Given the growth of rapid transit, why not encourage growth in outlying areas (or around shopping centers and malls)?
My children are fourth generation Edmonds residents, and the second generation to be raised here from birth. Our family also has deep roots in Ballard, with three generations having lived and two generations having been raised there. No one in our family is by any means wealthy.
The Ballard that our family was nurtured within and loved has been destroyed. Blocks of charming single-family homes and character rich small businesses have been replaced by modern townhouses, condos, apartment buildings, 5 Guys, Target. Developers profit while established homeowners and small businesses suffer. Google the Ballard Up House. The price of housing has not gone down. We have little reason to visit Ballard anymore, and when we do we feel disgust.
Edmonds, our city is a treasure. Our neighborhoods and small businesses already thrive. Don’t destroy them. The careful stewardship of our city has made it a treasured place for four generations of my family to live. Please learn from Ballard. Once Edmonds is gone we can never get it back. Do not Ballardize Edmonds.
My mom (98) can still point out the house she lived in growing up in Ballard and name many of the original owners of homes in Ballard. Yes the main Ballard roads (15th and 24th) have been gentrified with apartment/condos, but just a block off those roads most of the original Ballard remains. I understand your caution with Edmonds and agree we need to reign in developer frenzy, but there’s a lot of Ballard homes and neighborhoods still beautifully standing.
THank you. I am sorry about your family still left in Ballard. I used to go to Ballard a lot myself. It WAS a lovely place. And you are correct it is no longer even close to the Ballard of before. I drove to Issaquah a few days ago over Lake Washington Bridge and East. I saw nothing but huge monstrosities all the way. I saw few trees and very tall massive buildings with no decks just horrible to look at. I was shocked it had been 5 years since I had driven to Issaquah. Its so sad.
The author’s statement that we have a”…deep housing affordability crisis: 40% of our city’s residents spend 30% or more of their income on housing costs…” may be misleading. Edmonds’ population is about 10 years older than the average age of any comparable city in Snohomish County and thus has a large number of retirees. Since retirees most often do not work, their main income of record is Social Security. What’s overlooked in the author’s statement (and most available official statistics) is that many, if not most, of these retirees have many other sources of income, their mortgages are paid off and they are financial secure…they are not struggling to stay in their homes.
That is true to a point. The issues is what about all of the citizens who live in Edmonds or throughout our state who do not make enough to afford their utility bills as it is. What about anyone who does not make a hundred grand a year regardless of their age or whether they are retired or not. This is a land grab. This is wrong and this is not an environmentally friendly idea at all. This is not being WOKE or LIBERAL this is being greedy and no inclusive of others in our state and in our little city. I am retired, I can afford to stay in my home. I will. I won’t sell to these builders and I hope others will see the light and not sell.
Great article. We need higher densities. Much of the area is zoned 7200/8400 with lots often exceeding that. Building an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is not a great solution for many. It’s expensive, a lot of people don’t want to be landlords, and selling the property can be an issue (greater cost and buyers don’t want to be landlords).
Very well said! Hear, hear!
But will they hear, and if they do, will they pay any attention?
Mr. Guenther and many other mostly younger people (than me) like him have drunk the kool-aid and this state control of local zoning will prevail unless the Courts decide to declare it all unconstitutional. That is where this issue is headed next I suspect. The Champagne corks are already popping in developer offices and law offices all over the state.
I would like to assure Mr. Guenther that my views against this have nothing to do with not wanting anyone of any color, religion, or sexual orientation to not be able to live in Edmonds. I am generally opposed to all mandates and moratoriums of any kind that don’t do what they claim to do and create more problems than they solve.
These bills are not going to solve the real things that are preventing affordable housing in Edmonds or anywhere else. Things like unfair and regressive taxation, low wages, substance abuse and mental illness, corrupt public officials here and abroad, and AI taking away jobs from real people with no provisions or thoughts about how to mitigate this. I don’t share your rosy view of the this Brave New World you are walking blindly into Mr. Guenther.
I mean no offense, but this is our town, our city, it’s a citizen issue and how we want our town to be. Its greenwashing, convincing us that more is better and that the offsets of density are going to outweigh the loss of carbon sequestration and loss of shade, that heat islands are better for us than having a longer commute to find housing near our work. As more businesses adopt remote workers, the less this has any weight.
I can, now that I have been getting involved for the past year or so, see that there is a clear bias toward this issue in the direction of the developers, and the “do something” mania that has begotten us many “unintended consequences” that we see all around us. Government-mandated density is madness, every city will lose its uniqueness and beauty. I moved here specifically for the trees!
The heavy hand of state government will remove local zoning choice to advance a social engineering goal of liberal Democrats. They believe forced higher density will solve homelessness with no evidence to support this contention. The State is not offering money to address increased demands on parking, water, sewer, policing and social services that increased density will dictate. Does anyone believe there will be cheap townhouses in Edmonds? The ugliness of once beautiful Ballard should be a warning to all.
Interesting that so many attribute Mr. Guenther’s opinions to his age. The adults in my household (in our mid-50s, FWIW) wholeheartedly agree with him. We’re neither socialists nor developers. Just ordinary folks.
Some feel every problem is due to the “other side” of politics. What’s way too simplistic and exaggerated. Couldn’t be further from the truth.
This young man seems to think that because someone “wants” to live in Edmonds, we should accommodate that want, even to the detriment of what “An Edmonds Kind of Day” means to us. There is no constitutional mandate for the government to provide for the “happiness” of the people beyond providing the freedom and safety for one to “pursue it. My family has been here for 40 years and we do not want Edmonds overrun with “soviet style” housing and the ruination of single family neighborhoods, period.
You are on the right track. I thought this young man made a good argument I don’t agree because he is for big government forcing small government to do things against the majority will.
The sad thing for me is that the only way I can fight this obvious state supported land grab, is to start voting for a bunch of would be Fascists; so I can avoid the “planning” of budding (mostly younger and ill educated) Socialists who think everything they want in the world; they are some how entitled to have no matter who it hurts in the process. The Looney Toons in both our political parties have taken over the asylum and there is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide from them anymore. Politically speaking, the common sense middle ground, simply no longer exists.
You can write and call your representatives and let them know how you feel; if they don’t deliver, then vote them out. The conservatives are not fascists; that’s only what the political left says they are. Do your own research. I find much of what is said about them is a vast exaggeration. Its Political BS both sides play to discredit the others ideas and drives a wedge in the debate and separates us from working together for a common cause, don’t be controlled by the media.
Check out the links on Save Shoreline Trees; we are in the same neighborhood and must band together to fight insanity.
The last Duplex in Edmonds, I recall being built was in 2019 and sold for $2m on Howell street. The smallest new construction house I have ever seen built in Edmonds was 1024 sqft on Daley street, sold for $560k in 2019 and currently Zillow’s at $789k, the current property tax is $5,869. more housing Density = More Market Rate Housing and a greater tax base.
Thanks for providing this information which further verifies that new homes will be sold at market-rate, which in Edmonds means not affordable for the “missing middle.” And thanks for your work on the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission. I just reviewed the excellent amendments you presented to the Commission that you based upon input gathered from Edmonds residents. Please remind me, of those eight(?) amendments, how many were adopted by your fellow commissioners?
The “Pocket Forest” amendment was approved and passed along to council. If you examine the most recent tree canopy report presented to council. Approximately 30% of Edmonds has sensitive and significant tree canopy. So this type of policy makes sense, and in its most simple form would not allow 30% of edmonds to be up-zoned in sensitive environmental locations. I will have to dig up the other amendments that failed to win approval.
1) Pocket Forest: Neighborhoods with signfigant tree canopy (pocket forest) should be considered exempt from being included in SF zone augmentation. Pocket Forest could be identified by Tree Board with help from the local Sierra Club and assimilated into this zoning recommendation.
*Environment was one of major concerns by our citizens, this amendment helps to address some of those concerns
What a relief the “Pocket Forest” amendment was approved! All of your amendments were excellent. I forwarded an old email that may or may not have the final version attached. Thanks again for your work as a member of the Citizen Housing Commission.
Which areas specifically are they considering leaving alone?? Where and what neighborhoods will be exempt? Without knowing nothing is helped for others to make decisions. Can you help with this so we understand, Michael McMurray? I am sure it would be appreciated by all of Edmonds. Thank you. Its always the smoke and mirrors that seems to get us all fighting. So total transparency is a must. Help if you can. If you do not know who do we ask? Who do we contact? THX.
The “fight” is about who controls the expanded tax base revenue. Neo-brutalism architecture style is cheaper to build than other high density buildings, and in Edmonds can still command market rents. Corporate and private equity firms can profit from the upzoning by buying the land ( they can easily afford it) and being subsidized to earmark some units as affordable, those subsidies coming from the existing tax payers. Infrastructure investments to accommodate the “mandated” growth will be again paid for by the existing and newly minted tax payers, except for the builders and developers who are given sweet deals. The only affordable single family homes are in the uptown area where the Council thinks it is swell until people complained. Our codes are a mess, our vision is shallow, but the need for more tax revenue rages on. Conflating it with the amorphous affordable housing is just divisive.
There is a bill currently making its way through the legislature allowing Councils to levy a 3% property tax increase (up from 1%). Just a public hearing required. Sweetener for the State upzoning?
For those following HB 1110’s progress in Olympia, both the PRO folks and the CON folks: The House Appropriations Committee just voted 25-5 (1 excused) to move an amended version of the bill forward, with several Republicans voting to support the bill. It will now be read in open session before the entire House and then go to the Rules Committee.
Efforts by Strom Peterson, Marco Liias, and others to preempt local lawmaking are alarming.
Edmonds is a Code City like many other cities in Washington State. We have “Home Rule”.
Per AWC, “Home Rule” is the right to locally govern on issues of local concern: “the authority of a local government to control its local affairs without interference from the state.”
We already possess home rule power and we used that power to adopt our own zoning laws. Will our own laws be grandfathered?
Is what is going on in Olympia allowed by our State Constitution or the RCW’s?:
RCW 35A.11.050: The general grant of municipal power conferred by this chapter and this title on legislative bodies of noncharter code cities and charter code cities is intended to confer the greatest power of local self-government consistent with the Constitution of this state and shall be construed liberally in favor of such cities.
Our property taxes for a single family residence that still has quite a fair amount of open space for parking and landscaping just went up $1000/yr. when the market value of our home has decreased somewhat over last year. If this legislation passes, we may be forced to consider building an adjacent two story tiny home( that would probably have some sound view) just to manage to have the income to keep paying the horrendous property taxes we are already subjected to; just to keep living here. We could live in the “tiny” home and rent out the “main” house for around 3K per month. That “tiny” home would probably cost around $300,000 to build and be worth around $500,000 if the proposed subdivision provisions of these bills also become law. That is what is going to happen all over Edmonds and there will be virtually no middle income housing created by these land grab bills.
Smaller communities than the state, Edmonds for an example, should make the decisions that deeply affect their way of life. I do not support state government telling people they can do anything they want; money always prevails, which means in this case, mushrooming of giant, ugly, parking-free boxes and greatly increased traffic.
Let local communities decide what they want their towns to be. Or is that too much like democracy?
A summary of House Bill 1110 ( in understandable language) is provided by legislative staff in this link:
If the link doesn’t work, search: HB1110 Bill Report
Forest, that’s not the current version. It was amended yesterday.
Searched WA Gov state site but could not find an amended HB1110 Bill Report. (It would be helpful if they would add a date to a Bill Report). Evidently some cities indicated they would support the Bill if a few amendments were made. I could be wrong, but it appears from that no amendments were officially adopted yesterday.
I suggest that everyone who wants to discuss this issue in person attend the “Green Drinks” environmentally aware meeting at Salish Sea Boathouse on Thursday, March 2, starting at 6 pm.
Forest, the second substitute bill was proposed yesterday by Rep Macro and it IS what was passed out of the appropriations committee. Committee staff (Serena Dolly) posted a summary and the second substitute bill itself should be posted with the prior versions. You can also read the transcript on the TVW site of the hearing or watch the hearing, as the second substitute was read. or email Rep Macri’s LA. Lots of folks have been posting ABOUT the second substitute on social media. This link from the Urbanist twitter feed might work.
So where is the “growth” coming from? Boeing is laying off, Amazon is laying off, Google and Facebook have reduced their workforces, and office space is sitting vacant in Seattle (and elsewhere). There is an exodus of folks from California to Nevada, largely based on CAs high tax rates. Folks want to buy single family homes. (Ever lived in a duplex or fourplex with kids?). That hasn’t changed except folks can’t afford them. This is not about growth management. People are not sheep and when the cost of living is too high in one area, they leave. It really is that simple, and then you have a glut of vacant homes. Been there done that.
Good comment Diane. They are saying that the population of Edmonds is expected to grow 14,000 by 2044 when it has only grown by a couple of thousand in the past 20 years. Any growth comes from people moving into Edmonds since births and deaths are about equal. The 14,000 must be based upon busing illegal immigrants here.
There’s a headline story in this morning’s Seattle Times with State schools Superintendent Chris Reykdal stating that we’re down to enrollment levels we thought we’d see in about 10 years. This is yet another indicator that the population growth being projected by Olympia to justify increased housing density is total fantasy.
There is no such thing as Affordable Housing…it is only the Affordable Industrial Complex trying to make a fast buck spreading that myth.
We need to wise up and quickly..
“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
If you think growth in our urban area is horrible, you should go where the opposite is happening. Oh you say that would mean declining or static real estate values? And you don’t want that? So what do you want? And is that possible?
I propose that our entire nation form a research and development agency modeled after DARPA that studies housing with a broadest wholistic agenda possible with the goal of making housing as sustainable and economically available as possible.
If that research works, the spin-offs could raise our and the worlds standard of living significantly. It is a huge study that would involve all the technical and social aspects of housing and community.
I also think it would be very useful to teach how to care for housing as a required subject in schools. And to offer remedial courses to adults. I wouldn’t mind taking one myself.
Real first and last names — as well as city of residence — are required for all commenters.
This is so we can verify your identity before approving your comment.
By commenting here you agree to abide by our Code of Conduct. Please read our code at the bottom of this page before commenting.